DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-12, 15-16, 19, 21-26 and 29-30, 35, 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0350662 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang et al. disclose a controller for robotically-enable teleoperated system comprising:
a table (e.g., supporting platform 38 (table or bed) (par. 69)) with a rigid base (support structure / column 37 – par. 69-70 and Figures 6 and 10) and a table top ( e.g., table / bed top surface) that is movable relative to the rigid base (e.g., Figures 8 and 10 show table / bed 38 being pivoted or tilted with respect to the support structure / column 37 respectively (par. 76 and 78) );
one or more kinematic chains (e.g., one or more robotic arms 12 / 39 – par. 48 and 70) that are coupled to the table (e.g., Figure 6 shows the robotic arms attached to the support platform (table/bed) 38 via support structure / column 37 (par. 69-70));
one or more processors (e.g.., computer based control system / controller – par. 106 and 105); and memory storing instructions (e.g., a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer program instructions – par. 105), which, when executed by the one or more processors (e.g., wherein the controller / computer based control system executes the stored computer program instruction – par. 105 and 174), cause the one or more processors to :
initiate first movement of the table top relative to the rigid base in accordance with a user request (e.g., tilting the table 38 to a position (par. 78 and Figure 10) based on user command (par. 105) to control the pitch rotation mechanism 61 of the table / bed via motors (3 and 4) (par. 79 and Figures 10-11)); and
move the one or more kinematic chains (e.g., one or more robotic arms 12 / 39) relative to the rigid base in coordination with the first movement of the table top such that one or more preset conditions are maintained during the first movement of the table top (e.g., the arm mounts 45 rotates to match the tilted table position (limitation: … preset conditions …) such that the arms 39 maintain the same planar relationship with table 38 (par. 78 and Figure 10), which covers one or more preset conditions are maintained ).
Regarding claim 2, Huang et al. disclose a controller for robotically-enable teleoperated system, wherein the one or more kinematic chains include at least a first robotic arm (e.g., one or more robotic arms 12 / 39 – par. 48 and 70).
Regarding claim 5, Huang et al. disclose a controller for robotically-enable teleoperated system, wherein the one or more preset conditions that are maintained during the first movement of the table top include a preset condition that prohibits one or more of: the one or more kinematic chains and the table top from reaching within a threshold distance of one another during the first movement of the table top (e.g., the arm mounts 45 rotates to match the tilted table position such that the arms 39 maintain the same planar relationship with table 38 (par. 78 and Figure 10), which covers prohibiting the robot arm to reach the table within a threshold distance as the table is tilted); or
Regarding claim 7, Huang et al. disclose a controller for robotically-enable teleoperated system, wherein the one or more kinematic chains include a first kinematic chain that includes a first joint, wherein the one or more preset conditions that are maintained during the first movement of the table top include a preset condition that prevents the first joint from reaching beyond a joint limit (e.g., the arm mounts 45 rotates to match the tilted table position such that the arms 39 maintain the same planar relationship with table 38 (par. 78 and Figure 10) without moving the robot joint(s), which covers preventing robot arm joint from reaching a joint limit. Figure 10 shows robot arms with at least one joint(s)).
Regarding claim 8, Huang et al. disclose a controller for robotically-enable teleoperated system, wherein the one or more kinematic chains include at least a first robotic arm that has an attached medical tool at its distal end during the first movement of the table top (e.g., Figure 8 shows one or more robotic arms 39 holding a ureteroscope 56 via their end effector (par. 76 and 69 and Figure 8) ).
Regarding claim 9, Huang et al. disclose a controller for robotically-enable teleoperated system, wherein the one or more preset conditions that are maintained during the first movement of the table top include a preset condition that maintains a fixed spatial relationship between the attached medical tool and the table top during the first movement of the table top (e.g., the arm mounts 45 rotates to match the tilted table position such that the arms 39 maintain the same planar relationship with table 38 (par. 78 and Figure 10) while holding the ureteroscope 56 via their end effector (par. 76 and 69 and Figure 8), which covers maintaining a fixed spatial relationship between the held ureteroscope and the table).
Regarding claim 10, Huang et al. disclose a controller for robotically-enable teleoperated system, wherein the one or more preset conditions maintain an aligned spatial relationship to a tele-operation input device of the attached medical tool relative to the table top (e.g., an input device configured to allow an operator to manipulate and control one or more instruments (par. 106). For instance, Figure 8 shows one or more robotic arms 39 holding a ureteroscope 56 (par. 76 and 69 and Figure 8), which are controlled by the operator via the input device).
Regarding claim 11, Huang et al. disclose a controller for robotically-enable teleoperated system, wherein the one or more kinematic chains include a first robotic arm and an adjustable arm support on which the first robotic arm is positioned (e.g., Figures 9-10 show one or more robotic arms 12 / 39 mounted on arm mount(s) 45 (limitation: adjustable arm) (par. 71, 78 and Figure 9-10)).
Regarding claim 12, Huang et al. disclose a controller for robotically-enable teleoperated system, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (e.g., wherein the computer based control system / controller executes the stored computer program instruction – par. 105 and 174), to move the adjustable arm support and the first robotic arm in coordination with the first movement of the table top such that the one or more preset conditions are maintained during the first movement of the table top (e.g., the arm mounts 45 (limitation: the adjustable arm support) rotates to match the tilted table position such that the arms 39 maintain the same planar relationship with table 38 (par. 78 and Figure 10) based on user command (par. 105) to control the pitch rotation mechanism 61 of the table / bed via motors (3 and 4) (par. 79 and Figures 10-11)).
Regarding claim 15, the method claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within the rejected apparatus claim 1. The method steps of claim 15 is equivalent to the functional language of the apparatus claim 1. Huang et al. disclose computer based control system / controller (par. 106 and 105) configured to process user command (par. 105) to control the pitch rotation mechanism 61 of the table / bed via motors (3 and 4) (par. 79 and Figures 10-11), which covers receiving user request to move the table top.
Regarding claim 16, the method claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within the rejected apparatus claim 2. The method steps and structure(s) of claim 16 are equivalent to the functional language and structure(s) of the apparatus claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, the method claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within the rejected apparatus claim 5. The method steps and structure(s) of claim 19 are equivalent to the functional language and structure(s) of the apparatus claim 5.
Regarding claim 21, the method claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within the rejected apparatus claim 7. The method steps and structure(s) of claim 21 are equivalent to the functional language and structure(s) of the apparatus claim 7.
Regarding claim 22, the method claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within the rejected apparatus claim 8. The method steps and structure(s) of claim 22 are equivalent to the functional language and structure(s) of the apparatus claim 8.
Regarding claim 23, the method claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within the rejected apparatus claim 9. The method steps and structure(s) of claim 23 are equivalent to the functional language and structure(s) of the apparatus claim 9.
Regarding claim 24, the method claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within the rejected apparatus claim 10. The method steps and structure(s) of claim 24 are equivalent to the functional language and structure(s) of the apparatus claim 10.
Regarding claim 25, the method claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within the rejected apparatus claim 11. The method steps and structure(s) of claim 25 are equivalent to the functional language and structure(s) of the apparatus claim 11.
Regarding claim 26, the method claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within the rejected apparatus claim 12. The method steps and structure(s) of claim 26 are equivalent to the functional language and structure(s) of the apparatus claim 12.
Regarding claim 29, the non-transitory computer readable claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within rejected claim 1. The executed operations of claim 29 are equivalent to the functional limitation of rejected claim 1. Huang et al. disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store computer program instructions (par. 105) and be executed by computer based control system / controller to control the supporting platform 38 (table or bed) and robotic arms 12 / 39 (par. 105 and 174).
Regarding claim 30, the non-transitory computer readable claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within rejected claim 2. The executed operations and structure(s) of claim 30 are equivalent to the functional limitation and structure(s) of rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 33, the non-transitory computer readable claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within rejected claim 5. The executed operations and structure(s) of claim 33 are equivalent to the functional limitation and structure(s) of rejected claim 5.
Regarding claim 35, the non-transitory computer readable claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within rejected claim 7. The executed operations and structure(s) of claim 35 are equivalent to the functional limitation and structure(s) of rejected claim 7.
Regarding claim 36, the non-transitory computer readable claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within rejected claim 8. The executed operations and structure(s) of claim 36 are equivalent to the functional limitation and structure(s) of rejected claim 8.
Regarding claim 37, the non-transitory computer readable claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within rejected claim 9. The executed operations and structure(s) of claim 37 are equivalent to the functional limitation and structure(s) of rejected claim 9.
Regarding claim 38, the non-transitory computer readable claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within rejected claim 10. The executed operations and structure(s) of claim 38 are equivalent to the functional limitation and structure(s) of rejected claim 10.
Regarding claim 39, the non-transitory computer readable claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within rejected claim 11. The executed operations and structure(s) of claim 39 are equivalent to the functional limitation and structure(s) of rejected claim 11.
Regarding claim 40, the non-transitory computer readable claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within rejected claim 12. The executed operations and structure(s) of claim 40 are equivalent to the functional limitation and structure(s) of rejected claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-4, 6, 17-18, 20, 31-32, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0350662 A1) in view of Di Maio et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0216555 A1).
Regarding claims 3-4, Huang et al. failed to specifically disclose (i) … during the first movement of the table top include a preset condition that limits movement of a first distal portion of a first kinematic chain to less than a threshold amount of movement relative to the table top and (ii) wherein the preset condition that limits the movement of the first distal portion of the first kinematic chain to less than the threshold amount of movement relative to the table top comprises maintaining a remote center of motion associated with the first kinematic chain relative to the table top (added remarks).
However, DiMaio et al. teach a robotic system configured to maintain the position and orientation of surgical tool 912A as the table surface 910A is moved relative to the table base 902A, which covers movement of the distal portion of the robot within a threshold amount (par. 208 and 209 and Figures 9A-9B). DiMaio et al. teach a robotic system configured to reposition the robot arm 106 away from detected obstacle to avoid collision (par. 185) while maintain the position and orientation of surgical tool 912A as the table surface 910A is moved (par. 208 and 209), which covers maintaining a center of motion for the robot arm as it reposition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the controller for robotically-enable teleoperated system taught by Huang et al., such that the controller maintain the position and orientation of surgical tool as the table surface is moved relative to the table base, in view of DiMaio et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of optimizing the position of the robot arm and table surface during a surgical procedure while avowing collision (par. 209 and 185).
Regarding claim 6, Huang et al. failed to specifically disclose wherein the one or more preset conditions that are maintained during the first movement of the table top include a preset condition that prevents the one or more kinematic chains from reaching within a threshold distance of one or more objects adjacent to the patient platform system.
However, DiMaio et al. teach a robotic system configured to reposition the robot arm 106 away from detected obstacle 612 to avoid collision (par. 185) while maintain the position and orientation of surgical tool 912A as the table surface 910A is moved (par. 208 and 209), which covers preventing the robot arm from reaching the detected obstacle within a threshold distance. Figure 6G show detected object 612 adjacent to the table surface / bed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the controller for robotically-enable teleoperated system taught by Huang et al., such that the controller repositions the robot arm away from detected obstacle to avoid collision while maintain the position and orientation of surgical tool as the table surface is moved, in view of DiMaio et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of avoiding collision between the robot arm and surrounding object (par. 185) while optimizing the position of the robot arm and table surface during a surgical procedure (par. 209).
Regarding claims 17-18, the method claims are rejected for similar reasons presented within the rejected apparatus claims 3-4. The method steps and structure(s) of claims 17-18 are equivalent to the functional language and structure(s) of the apparatus claims 3-4.
Regarding claim 20, the method claims are rejected for similar reasons presented within the rejected apparatus claim 6. The method steps and structure(s) of claim 20 are equivalent to the functional language and structure(s) of the apparatus claim 6.
Regarding claims 31-32, the non-transitory computer readable claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within rejected claims 3-4. The executed operations and structure(s) of claims 31-32 are equivalent to the functional limitation and structure(s) of rejected claims 3-4.
Regarding claim 34, the non-transitory computer readable claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within rejected claim 6. The executed operations and structure(s) of claim 34 are equivalent to the functional limitation and structure(s) of rejected claim 6.
Claims 13-14, 27-28 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0350662 A1) in view of DeFonzo et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0000530 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Huang et al. disclose a controller for robotically-enable teleoperated system configured to tilt the table 38 to a position (par. 78 and Figure 10) based on user command (par. 105) and rotate the arm mounts 45 to match the tilted table position such that the arms 39 maintain the same planar relationship with table 38 (par. 78 and Figure 10); which covers permitting spatial relationships between the table top and robot distal portions to change by more than a threshold amount. For instance, Figure 10 shows a tilted table position compared to horizontal table position of Figure 6, wherein spatial relationships between the table and the robot arm / end effector changed by more than a predetermined angle of inclination.
However, Huang et al. failed to specifically disclose the one or more kinematic chains include one or more robotic arms that are in an undocked state relative to the table top.
However, DeFonzo et al. teach a technique to undock a robot arm during a surgical procedure (par. 114 and 137), wherein the arm mounts 45 rotates to match a tilted table such that the arms 39 maintain the same planar relationship with table 38 (par. 78 and Figure 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the controller for robotically-enable teleoperated system, taught by Huang et al., such that the controller / operator undocks a robot arm during a surgical, wherein the arm mounts rotates to match a tilted table such that the arms maintain the same planar relationship with table, in view of DeFonzo et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of viewing and performing surgeries in multiple areas / quadrants (par. 114).
Regarding claim 14, Huang et al. failed to specifically disclose wherein the one or more kinematic chains include one or more robotic arms that are in an undocked state relative to the table top, and the one or more undocked robotic arms remain in non-interfering configurations during the first movement of the table top.
However, DeFonzo et al. teach a technique to undock a robot arm during a surgical procedure (par. 114 and 137), wherein the arm mounts 45 rotates to match a tilted table such that the arms 39 maintain the same planar relationship with table 38 (par. 78 and Figure 10), which covers an undocked state of a robotic arm to remain in non-interfering configurations during the first movement of the table top. Figures 23C, 24C and 26C show tilted table during a surgical procedure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the controller for robotically-enable teleoperated system taught by Huang et al., such that the controller / operator undock a robot arm during a surgical, wherein the arm mounts rotates to match a tilted table such that the arms maintain the same planar relationship with table, in view of DeFonzo et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of viewing and performing surgeries in multiple areas / quadrants (par. 114).
Regarding claim 27, the method claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within the rejected apparatus claim 13. The method steps and structure(s) of claim 27 are equivalent to the functional language and structure(s) of the apparatus claim 13.
Regarding claim 28, the method claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within the rejected apparatus claim 14. The method steps and structure(s) of claim 28 are equivalent to the functional language and structure(s) of the apparatus claim 14.
Regarding claim 41, the non-transitory computer readable claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within rejected claim 13. The executed operations and structure(s) of claim 41 are equivalent to the functional limitation and structure(s) of rejected claim 13.
Regarding claim 42, the non-transitory computer readable claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within rejected claim 14. The executed operations and structure(s) of claim 42 are equivalent to the functional limitation and structure(s) of rejected claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoi H. Tran can be reached at 571 272 6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jorge O Peche/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights